-
Public Health Nursing (Boston, Mass.) Mar 2023The concept of healthcare acceptability is important for nursing staff spending most of their time with patients. Nevertheless, acceptability remains confusing without a...
BACKGROUND
The concept of healthcare acceptability is important for nursing staff spending most of their time with patients. Nevertheless, acceptability remains confusing without a collective definition in existing literature.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to create a consensus among experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability.
METHODS
We conducted two rounds of Delphi surveys to collect opinions from experts on definition and conceptual framework of healthcare acceptability proposed following thematic content analysis. We calculated the consensus among experts using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and followed the guidance on conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) best practices.
RESULTS
A total of 34 experts completed two rounds of Delphi survey. The definition was validated through consensus as: "a multi-construct concept describing the nonlinear cumulative combination in parts or in whole of experienced or anticipated specific healthcare from the relevant patients/participants, communities, providers/researchers or healthcare systems' managers and policy makers' perspectives in a given context." The overall quality rating was 92.6% and 95.1% for the proposed definition and conceptual framework respectively.
CONCLUSION
Opinions collected from experts provided significant insights to build a consensus on healthcare acceptability advancing public health nursing.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Surveys and Questionnaires; Nursing Staff
PubMed: 36478298
DOI: 10.1111/phn.13153 -
Health Expectations : An International... Feb 2023To involve health service users in health care and health research priority setting, different methods exist. Which method is most suitable under which circumstances is...
INTRODUCTION
To involve health service users in health care and health research priority setting, different methods exist. Which method is most suitable under which circumstances is unknown. We compared a postal Delphi survey and an in-person workshop to involve health service users in priority settings for rehabilitative care and research in Germany.
METHODS
One hundred and eighty-four former rehabilitants were randomly assigned to a postal Delphi survey (n = 152) or an in-person workshop (n = 32). Two hundred and seventy-six employees in rehabilitation were also invited to the Delphi Survey. The methodological comparison refers only to the sample of rehabilitants. Within each method, the participants agreed on the top 10 priorities for practice improvement and research in rehabilitative care. The priorities were compared descriptively. Participants' satisfaction was measured with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool. The usability of both methods was compared based on the effort, time and material costs required for implementation.
RESULTS
Seventy-five former rehabilitants and 41 employees in rehabilitation completed both Delphi survey rounds. Eleven former rehabilitants participated in the in-person workshop. Priorities for practice improvement showed a high degree of overlap between both methods whereas research priorities differed greatly. Participants of the in-person workshop felt significantly better prepared, more listened to and more likely to feel that different views on the topics were discussed. Participants of the Delphi survey expressed difficulties in understanding all survey questions. The Delphi survey was more elaborate in preparation and implementation but caused lower material costs.
CONCLUSION
The differences in research priorities between the two methods could be due to the different samples, differences in the individual interests of participants or differences in the prioritization process. In-person workshops seem to be more appropriate for complex topics, where clarifications of questions and deeper discussions are needed. Delphi surveys seem to be more suitable for easily understandable topics, larger sample sizes and when fewer financial resources are available.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
The different study phases were supported by employees in rehabilitation and former rehabilitants (e.g., developing study documents, and interpreting results).
Topics: Humans; Delivery of Health Care; Health Priorities; Biomedical Research; Health Services; Health Facilities; Delphi Technique
PubMed: 36346143
DOI: 10.1111/hex.13646 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Jan 2004To achieve consensus in all phases of chemical incident planning and response. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To achieve consensus in all phases of chemical incident planning and response.
DESIGN
A three round Delphi study was conducted using a panel of 39 experts from specialties involved in the management of chemical incidents. Areas that did not reach consensus in the Delphi study were presented as synopsis statements for discussion in four syndicate groups at a conference hosted by the Department of Health Emergency Planning Co-ordination Unit.
RESULTS
A total of 183 of 322 statements had reached consensus upon completion of the Delphi study. This represented 56.8% of the total number of statements. Of these, 148 reached consensus at >94% and 35 reached consensus at >89%. The results of the process are presented as a series of synopsis consensus statements that cover all phases of chemical incident planning and response.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of a Delphi study and subsequent syndicate group discussions achieved consensus in aspects of all phases of chemical incident planning and response that can be translated into practical guidance for use at regional prehospital and hospital level. Additionally, areas of non-consensus have been identified where further work is required.
Topics: Accidents, Occupational; Chemical Industry; Delphi Technique; Disaster Planning; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Transportation of Patients; Triage
PubMed: 14734369
DOI: 10.1136/emj.2003.003087 -
PloS One 2022Artificial intelligence (AI) has affected our day-to-day in a great extent. Healthcare industry is one of the mainstream fields among those and produced a noticeable...
BACKGROUND
Artificial intelligence (AI) has affected our day-to-day in a great extent. Healthcare industry is one of the mainstream fields among those and produced a noticeable change in treatment and education. Medical students must comprehend well why AI technologies mediate and frame their decisions on medical issues. Formalizing of instruction on AI concepts can facilitate learners to grasp AI outcomes in association with their sensory perceptions and thinking in the dynamic and ambiguous reality of daily medical practice. The purpose of this study is to provide consensus on the competencies required by medical graduates to be ready for artificial intelligence technologies and possible applications in medicine and reporting the results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A three-round e-Delphi survey was conducted between February 2020 and November 2020. The Delphi panel accorporated experts from different backgrounds; (i) healthcare professionals/ academicians; (ii) computer and data science professionals/ academics; (iii) law and ethics professionals/ academics; and (iv) medical students. Round 1 in the Delphi survey began with exploratory open-ended questions. Responses received in the first round evaluated and refined to a 27-item questionnaire which then sent to the experts to be rated using a 7-point Likert type scale (1: Strongly Disagree-7: Strongly Agree). Similar to the second round, the participants repeated their assessments in the third round by using the second-round analysis. The agreement level and strength of the consensus was decided based on third phase results. Median scores was used to calculate the agreement level and the interquartile range (IQR) was used for determining the strength of the consensus.
RESULTS
Among 128 invitees, a total of 94 agreed to become members of the expert panel. Of them 75 (79.8%) completed the Round 1 questionnaire, 69/75 (92.0%) completed the Round 2 and 60/69 (87.0%) responded to the Round 3. There was a strong agreement on the 23 items and weak agreement on the 4 items.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has provided a consensus list of the competencies required by the medical graduates to be ready for AI implications that would bring new perspectives to medical education curricula. The unique feature of the current research is providing a guiding role in integrating AI into curriculum processes, syllabus content and training of medical students.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Consensus; Curriculum; Delphi Technique; Education, Medical; Humans
PubMed: 35862401
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271872 -
Nursing Open Apr 2023To develop a set of evidence-informed strategies to assist older people to improve swallowing functions and prevent further damage from complications. (Review)
Review
AIM
To develop a set of evidence-informed strategies to assist older people to improve swallowing functions and prevent further damage from complications.
DESIGN
A two-round Delphi survey.
METHODS
An initial set of dysphagia care strategies with 74 relevant items for older people was formed based on a literature review by seven researchers. An online survey was conducted by 21 panellists, and data of experts' opinions were collected and analysed by improved Delphi method.
RESULTS
The positive coefficients in the two rounds of expert consultation were 85.71% and 83.33%, respectively. Consensus was reached with 53 items included and was allocated into the following five sections: (1) screening, (2) assessment, (3) training, (4) interventions and (5) management. These strategies were named with the acronym of each section-"SATIA". The management strategy can be applied to guide the management of older people with dysphagia.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Consensus; Deglutition Disorders; Delphi Technique; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 36440605
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1493 -
The Veterinary Record Mar 2019Preventive healthcare is the focus of a large proportion of UK small animal veterinary consultations. The evidence base for how to optimise these consultations is...
Preventive healthcare is the focus of a large proportion of UK small animal veterinary consultations. The evidence base for how to optimise these consultations is limited. Therefore, evidence-based practical recommendations are needed for veterinary surgeons conducting these consultations. The aim of this study was to use an evidence-based methodology to develop the first consensus recommendations to improve dog and cat preventative healthcare consultations (PHCs).Evidence from multiple sources was systematically examined to generate a list of 18 recommendations. Veterinary surgeons and pet owners with extensive experience of PHCs were recruited to an anonymous panel to obtain consensus on whether these recommendations would improve PHCs. A Delphi technique was followed during three rounds of online questionnaire, with consensus set at 80 per cent agreement or disagreement with each recommendation. Thirteen of the original 18 recommendations reached consensus (>80per cent agreement), while the five remaining recommendations did not reach consensus.Globally, these are the first evidence-based recommendations developed specifically in relation to small animal general practice PHCs, generated via a Delphi panel including both veterinary surgeons and pet owners. Future work is needed to understand how these recommendations can be implemented in a range of veterinary practice settings.
Topics: Animals; Cat Diseases; Cats; Delphi Technique; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Humans; Referral and Consultation; United Kingdom; Veterinary Medicine
PubMed: 30765500
DOI: 10.1136/vr.104970 -
Medical Education Online Dec 2024Gamification has gained popularity in medical education, but key elements have not been formally identified. This study aimed to generate and prioritize a list of key...
BACKGROUND
Gamification has gained popularity in medical education, but key elements have not been formally identified. This study aimed to generate and prioritize a list of key elements of gamification in medical education.
METHODS
This study utilized a two-stage approach, including the Delphi method and qualitative interview. Nineteen medical educators with expertise in gamification participated in the Delphi method stage. Experts who had more than three years of experience with gamification in medical education constituted the expert panel. The experts were then asked to rate the gamification elements using the Likert five-point scale through at least two consensus-seeking rounds. Consensus for key elements was predefined as ≥ 51% of respondents rating an element as 'important' or"very important." In the qualitative interview stage, 10 experts provided feedback on the application of these key gamification elements.
RESULTS
Eighteen participants (11 males and 7 females) completed the entire Delphi process for this study. After two rounds of surveys, the consensus was reached on all elements. Thirteen elements scored more than 4 points (37%) and reached the criteria of key elements of gamification in medical education. The top five key elements were integration with instruction objectives, game rules, rapid feedback, fairness, and points/scoring. The thirteen key elements for successful gamification in medical education were further organized into two main categories: (1) gamification design principles and (2) game mechanisms.
CONCLUSIONS
Integration with educational objectives, gamification in curriculum design and teaching methods, and balancing between the mechanisms and principles were the three key components for successful gamification. This study explored the gamification key elements, providing practical tips for medical educators in their efforts to gamify medical education. Future studies involving learners could be performed to examine the efficacy of these key elements in gamification.
Topics: Female; Male; Humans; Gamification; Delphi Technique; Education, Medical; Teaching Rounds; Curriculum
PubMed: 38194415
DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2024.2302231 -
Nursing Open Aug 2023This study developed a set of competency evaluation indicators for shift work nurses in China. (Review)
Review
AIM
This study developed a set of competency evaluation indicators for shift work nurses in China.
BACKGROUND
Nurses on night shifts must deal with the treatment, nursing, and management work, which requires excellent competency of night shift nurses in their knowledge, skills, and ability. However, the competency evaluation index system for shift work nurses has not been established yet in China.
METHODS
This study performed a literature review and semi-structured interviews to draft the preliminary competency evaluation indicators for nursing shift work. The Delphi technique was adopted to administer two rounds of questionnaires on 21 nursing experts.
RESULTS
The positive coefficients of experts in the two rounds were 100% and 90.48%, respectively, whereas the authority coefficients were 0.974 and 0.971, respectively. The coefficients of variation were 0.00-0.26 and 0.00-0.16, respectively. The competency evaluation index system for shift work nurses consisted of 2 first-level indicators, 16 second-level indicators, and 67 third-level indicators.
CONCLUSION
The competency index system of shift work nurses is scientific and applicable.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT
The competency evaluation index system of shift work nurses would provide an effective practical framework for shift nursing administration to evaluate, train, and assess the competency of shift work nurses.
Topics: Humans; Delphi Technique; China; Nurses
PubMed: 37194137
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1809 -
Health & Social Care in the Community May 2022Defining alternative health care and the recording of associated adverse events and harm remains problematic. This Canadian study aimed to establish and classify...
Defining alternative health care and the recording of associated adverse events and harm remains problematic. This Canadian study aimed to establish and classify risk-associated alternative health practices in a Delphi study undertaken with an interdisciplinary panel of 17 health experts in 2020. It provides a new functional definition of alternative health care and an initial taxonomy of risk-associated alternative health care practices. A number of risk-associated practices were identified and categorized into general practices that conflict with biomedical care or largely untested therapies, alternative beliefs systems, physical manipulative alternative therapies, and herbal and nutritional supplements. Some risk significant harms including major physical injuries or even death. The lack of systematic methods for recording adverse events in alternative health care makes establishing the frequency of such events challenging. However, it is important that people engaging with alternative health care understand they are not necessarily risk-free endeavours, and what those risks are.
Topics: Canada; Complementary Therapies; Delphi Technique; Humans
PubMed: 34041822
DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13386 -
Journal of Surgical Education 2020Mediastinal mass resection and thymectomy are complex and related operations that are core components of competency for a general thoracic surgeon and an important...
OBJECTIVES
Mediastinal mass resection and thymectomy are complex and related operations that are core components of competency for a general thoracic surgeon and an important learning objective for thoracic surgery trainees. This study aimed to design a combined competency assessment instrument for mediastinal mass resection and thymectomy.
DESIGN
A comprehensive competency assessment instrument was designed by a process of logical analysis by 3 expert thoracic surgeons with an interest in mediastinal surgery. The instrument was then assessed and refined using a modified Delphi process.
SETTING
The Delphi questionnaire was distributed to all members of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons in 2018 to 2019.
PARTICIPANTS
The first round of the Delphi review was completed by 58 respondents (response rate 43.9%). Respondents represented all Canadian provinces with a wide range of clinical experience and a high rate of involvement in resident education.
RESULTS
A first draft of the competency assessment instrument included 42 steps in 6 categories. A total of 3 rounds of Delphi review were performed. Cronbach's alpha for the final round was 0.83. Ultimately, 29 items were retained from the original instrument and two modified and three new items were added. The final instrument has 34 steps in 5 categories.
CONCLUSIONS
A nationwide consensus was established on the key components of assessing competence to perform mediastinal mass resection and thymectomy. The resulting instrument could be used to guide competency based assessments of thoracic surgeons and trainees.
Topics: Canada; Clinical Competence; Delphi Technique; Humans; Surgeons; Thymectomy
PubMed: 32571689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.06.004